Re: 26 Reasons to Choose a P&S Over a DSLR

Nothing works better than to have side by side examples of everything that
you state here. Where is the site that shows an independent analysis of a
P&S next to a DSLR? The proof is the examples not in the blather.

--
"The better educated a person is, the less likely it is that person will be
a conservative."

Advertisements

I just purchased a DSLR because my P&S wasn’t doing it for me. For ME. ME!

The point being, we all have our own reasons and how we like to shoot. I
like to take time pictures for the blur. I can do with the DSLR, what I used
to do in my darkroom and see it right away. I can telephoto and shoot
wildlife remotely. I can change speeds or openings to fit my needs; (speed,
depth of field). And I can change ‘film’ speed without changing film.

Advertisements

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems they're blind - right? must be <> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:38:35 GMT, "Fisher*King*" <>
> wrote:
>>The Painful Truth - Deal With It <> wrote in
>>news::
>>
>>> P&S cameras
>>
>>Nothing works better than to have side by side examples of everything that
>>you state here. Where is the site that shows an independent analysis of a
>>P&S next to a DSLR? The proof is the examples not in the blather.
> Here's one! Well, sort of.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
> Sorry, it's not a comparision of P&S vs. DSLR. It's a comparison of P&S vs.
> Medium Format Hasselblad H2. Experts cannot tell the difference between any
> images taken with either.
> Yes, P&S cameras can even go head to head against medium-format now. DSLRs
> are a pushover, being left in the dust (on their sensors LOL), long ago.
> Catch up!

The article showed that experts couldn't tell the difference between a
printed Hasselblad and a printed P&S image when both were downsized to
a specific print size. What was surprising was that that size was
bigger than expected.

Did you actually read the article? Was it too difficult for you to
understand? Or did you hope your readers would be too lazy to check?

Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
>
> Did you actually read the article? Was it too difficult for you to
> understand? Or did you hope your readers would be too lazy to check?

You know that he only wanted to read those parts that he wanted to
hear - - a classical dishonesty known as "Confirmation Bias".

It also can't be ignored that the specific camera in question ... the
Canon G10 ... retails for $500. Not only is that more expensive than
some dSLRs, but its also one of the most expensive P&S cameras made,
being roughly in the top 5% of cost. As such, it represents the "You
Get What You Pay For" paradigm, which happens to violate his argument
to get a P&S because they're cheap.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems they're blind - right? must be <> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:38:35 GMT, "Fisher*King*" <>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The Painful Truth - Deal With It <> wrote in
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> P&S cameras
>>> Nothing works better than to have side by side examples of everything that
>>> you state here. Where is the site that shows an independent analysis of a
>>> P&S next to a DSLR? The proof is the examples not in the blather.
>
>> Here's one! Well, sort of.
>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>
>> Sorry, it's not a comparision of P&S vs. DSLR. It's a comparison of P&S vs.
>> Medium Format Hasselblad H2. Experts cannot tell the difference between any
>> images taken with either.
>
>> Yes, P&S cameras can even go head to head against medium-format now. DSLRs
>> are a pushover, being left in the dust (on their sensors LOL), long ago.
>
>> Catch up!
>
> The article showed that experts couldn't tell the difference between a
> printed Hasselblad and a printed P&S image when both were downsized to
> a specific print size. What was surprising was that that size was
> bigger than expected.
>
> Did you actually read the article? Was it too difficult for you to
> understand? Or did you hope your readers would be too lazy to check?
>

I've used wrongly named P&S cameras (actually ZLRs)professionally for
many years. Professional only signifies that the results are sold, not
some measurable degree of hyper-quality.

Any photo I've tried to interpolate to a wall poster from one of these
miniature sensor cameras has failed due to the issues faced when you use
a plastic element lens on an undersized sensor.

The problem with coming out trying to confuse people into thinking these
cameras are something they are not is when you come up against someone
with the evidence that proves a P&S does not produce a very high quality
image for the reasons I mentioned above.

As long as your requirements are in a narrowly defined area, P&S cameras
may be a better choice than a DSLR but produce better quality image? No,
never going to happen.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems they're blind - right? must be <> wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2009 19:54:38 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems they're blind - right? must be <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:38:35 GMT, "Fisher*King*" <>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>The Painful Truth - Deal With It <> wrote in
>>>>news::
>>>>
>>>>> P&S cameras
>>>>
>>>>Nothing works better than to have side by side examples of everything that
>>>>you state here. Where is the site that shows an independent analysis of a
>>>>P&S next to a DSLR? The proof is the examples not in the blather.
>>
>>> Here's one! Well, sort of.
>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>>> Sorry, it's not a comparision of P&S vs. DSLR. It's a comparison of P&S vs.
>>> Medium Format Hasselblad H2. Experts cannot tell the difference between any
>>> images taken with either.
>>
>>> Yes, P&S cameras can even go head to head against medium-format now. DSLRs
>>> are a pushover, being left in the dust (on their sensors LOL), long ago.
>>
>>> Catch up!
>>
>>The article showed that experts couldn't tell the difference between a
>>printed Hasselblad and a printed P&S image when both were downsized to
>>a specific print size. What was surprising was that that size was
>>bigger than expected.
>>
>>Did you actually read the article? Was it too difficult for you to
>>understand? Or did you hope your readers would be too lazy to check?
> Did you actually understand the implications? Or are you too daft to
> realize that for the VAST majority of all DSLR owners they will do just as
> well with any good quality P&S camera. Unless you need the resolution of a
> medium-format Hasselblad, then a good P&S camera is all you'll ever really
> need.

If that's what you mean by "the implications", those "implications"
were not drawn in the cited article, and in order to deduce them from
the observations made in that article a number of extra assumptions
and logical steps must be made. I'm sure you're aware of those, and
aware that they are contentious, since you've been engaged in
long arguments about them for a long time.

I'm well aware of those implications, and I'm well aware that one of
the few places where they're not contentious and disputed is between
your ears.
> The DSLR has passed its usefulness today, and all the cumbersome
> restraints that go along with using that antiquated crap. This is what I've
> been trying to let people know for a long time now. But then idiots like
> you come along and you still try to justify how much money you wasted on
> your piece-of-shit DSLR. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

I didn't waste money on a crap DSLR. My DSLR is better than my P&S in
some respects, which is why I bought it, and inferior to my P&S in
other respects, which is why I will continue to use both, depending on
the photographic circumstances and demands.

they're blind - right? must be <> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
>>The article showed that experts couldn't tell the difference between a
>>printed Hasselblad and a printed P&S image when both were downsized to
>>a specific print size. What was surprising was that that size was
>>bigger than expected.
>>
>>Did you actually read the article? Was it too difficult for you to
>>understand? Or did you hope your readers would be too lazy to check?
>
>Did you actually understand the implications?

That a reduced-resolution print of a studio shot from one camera is as
good as a reduced-resolution print of a studio shot from another camera?
> Or are you too daft to
>realize that for the VAST majority of all DSLR owners they will do just as
>well with any good quality P&S camera.

Of course resolution is not the only strength of an SLR, but if
you're just trying to justify an irrational ideology then you need
to ignore many inconvenient facts.

>> The point being, we all have our own reasons and
>> how we like to shoot. I like to take time pictures for
>> the blur. I can do with the DSLR, what I used to do
>> in my darkroom and see it right away.
> Did you get a DSLR with shutter-speed preview? If
> not then you can only see that slow-shutter blur
> effect after you have taken your shot as you review
> it.

Which my P&S would not do, ergo, my statement.

>> I just feel I have more control, and fun.
> Oh my dear boy. You are so out of touch with
> what's capable on good P&S cameras.

Actually not. Having been photographing for over 60-years it still goes to
the heart of my statement.

> Now if you want remote shooting of wildlife ... you
> simply must get a CHDK supported P&S camera.

It will not do what I want it to do, thus my statement still stands.

> Wow are you ever out of touch with what
> good P&S cameras do these days.

Actually no, which is why I made the statement I made.

> No, that should be "Jerry (out of touch) 'n Vegas"
> because you wrongly paid attention to DSLR-Trolls
> who know no better, instead of researching the facts
> on your own.

Wrong again (you seem to be wrong quite a bit here).

> Is it too late to take that thing
> back and get a better P&S?

You're asking? You were indicating you had rather good knowledge. I've shown
you don't.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!